Marinetti was the leader of the Italian futurists, a poet and demagogue closely associated with the ruling fascists but often in conflict with them. (He criticized them for being too traditional and for their anti-Semitism.) He is best remembered for his many manifestos calling for a break with the past. One of his most memorable and controversial was the “Manifesto Against Past-Loving Venice,” wherein he suggested that the “small, stinking canals” of Venice be “filled with the rubble of the past” and paved over and that it be rebuilt as a modern militarized and industrialized city.

His venture into gastronomy started in 1926, when in another manifesto he called for a ban on pasta, describing it as “an absurd Italian gastronomic religion.” The favorite food of Italians, Marinetti claimed, made them lazy, tradition-bound and pacifist. He was met with massive protests. Petitions were signed. Housewives took to the streets. An enraged nationalistic journalist even challenged Marinetti to a duel. Marinetti accepted and — as happened so often in his colorful career — lost. He was gravely injured.

Marinetti’s many stunts made him famous, but they are also why he was seldom taken seriously. Today he is an obscure figure, even in Italy. But when I read “Futurist Cookbook,” I have little doubt he was on to something. Many of his ideas have since become commonplace. His proposal to make a cuisine that consisted of lighter sauces, bite-size dishes and “a consistent lightening of weight and reduction of volume of food-stuffs” is pretty uncontroversial, even though it sounded strange at the time.

Other ideas have an uncanny similarity to what is happening at the frontline of creative cuisine today. A recurring theme in Marinetti’s work, for instance, is the participation of all senses while dining, as illustrated by “A Tactile Dinner Party.” In another futurist meal idea, a house is built on a tongue of land between ocean and lake, and the smells from the sea, the lake and a nearby barn all contribute to the experience. Several other meals involve scent or music. When Blumenthal at the Fat Duck asks a diner to don headphones and listen to the sound of the sea while eating an oyster, he clearly has entered some of the same territory.

Similarly, Marinetti’s chapter “Invitation to Chemistry” has been answered by today’s modernist cooks, who are both lauded and criticized for being technology-focused and for using texture- and flavor-altering chemical compounds in their food. Playing with the shape and the appearance of the food is pretty commonplace today. At El Bulli, I was once served a dish consisting of two perfectly simple raw razor clams, one real and one faux. Playing with the diner’s expectations is also one of the ideas behind my futurist-inspired recipe for an orange-colored, orange-smelling dish that doesn’t actually contain orange (see recipe, Page E6).

Cuisine is an art form, no less than music and painting, and I have often wondered about the extent to which a particular approach to food is expressive of ideology and worldview. For example, Asian food is directly tied to Taoism, with the putting together of sweet and sour, smooth and crunchy, etc., expressing the yin and the yang, the balance of opposites that is the key to harmony in the universe. I have known Christians who would not think of partaking of books, movies, or music that are not “Christian” who nevertheless love to eat Chinese food, not caring about its worldview as long as it tastes good. (Do realize I’m not opposing Asian cuisine, far from it, any more than I’m advocating staying away from other art forms that aren’t Christian. The aesthetic elements, whether food that tastes good or art that is in good taste, already fall under the created order of God’s rule.)

Marinetti’s ghastly ideas–the rejection of tradition (making Italians give up pasta?) and the embrace of chemicals and technology–are clearly modernist. His radicalism and his assaults on ordinary human values–thinking they can be changed by mere willpower–are also clearly fascist.

So is the traditional arrangement of meat and potato and vegetables separately on a plate an expression of American individualism, as opposed to the communal pots of many combined ingredients that more communal cultures favor? Are casseroles favored at church pot luck dinners because in their mushing together of diverse ingredients they express Christian community? And what are we to make of the postmodernist touch in so many restaurants today of stacking the different foods on top of each other?

How does fast food express the consumer capitalism of the pop culture? Can you tell someone’s political beliefs by what they eat?

OK, how far can we take this? (I’m being partially serious and partially unserious.)

I’ve written about the Futurists and their very real (but often minimized) connection to Fascism. They demonstrate that Fascism was most certainly NOT conservative, but instead “the latest thing” much beloved by “cutting edge” artist and thinkers.

Mc Donald fries, at least until they turn cold, are evidence that God exists.

Now a for a less serious response:

We pray 7 petitions in the Our Father. A complete number. Each one of those petitions is already being done indeed without our prayer or asking . God´s Goodness and Mercy listed out for us in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd part of the Apostles Creed are being done faithfully by God “without or merit or worthiness, without our prayer or asking, even for all the wicked [and by them too! Luke 18 and the lawless judge and the elect].

So why pray? That is the question we should be asking.

Jesus in his preamble to the Our Father states clearly that a) God knows what we want and need before we pray and b) He is already busy providing those things. The very structure of the Our Father as a list of 7 pleadings, a complete number, crys this fact out to us.

We are praying to be able to see Our Father´s Goodness and Mercy, that is hidden-in-plain-sight: Everywhere. In, with and under: Everything. We pray to see past the sin that we see: Everywhere.

But we can only fully see this Goodness and Mercy, even in the middle of suffering, no, especially in the middle of suffering, by closing our eyes and hearing.

And we can only hear when we have first had the very Image of God restored in, with and under ordinary chlorinated, flourinated tap water spashing on to us, personally and by our own name, the Name of the Most Holy and Blessed Trinity.

So what , in the world, does this have to do with food, fast food, asian ying yang food and america-as-apple-pie?

Mc Donald fries, at least until they turn cold, are evidence that God exists.

Now a for a less serious response:

We pray 7 petitions in the Our Father. A complete number. Each one of those petitions is already being done indeed without our prayer or asking . God´s Goodness and Mercy listed out for us in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd part of the Apostles Creed are being done faithfully by God “without or merit or worthiness, without our prayer or asking, even for all the wicked [and by them too! Luke 18 and the lawless judge and the elect].

So why pray? That is the question we should be asking.

Jesus in his preamble to the Our Father states clearly that a) God knows what we want and need before we pray and b) He is already busy providing those things. The very structure of the Our Father as a list of 7 pleadings, a complete number, crys this fact out to us.

We are praying to be able to see Our Father´s Goodness and Mercy, that is hidden-in-plain-sight: Everywhere. In, with and under: Everything. We pray to see past the sin that we see: Everywhere.

But we can only fully see this Goodness and Mercy, even in the middle of suffering, no, especially in the middle of suffering, by closing our eyes and hearing.

And we can only hear when we have first had the very Image of God restored in, with and under ordinary chlorinated, flourinated tap water spashing on to us, personally and by our own name, the Name of the Most Holy and Blessed Trinity.

So what , in the world, does this have to do with food, fast food, asian ying yang food and america-as-apple-pie?

I like the bit about pasta; as if we could claim that a favorite food of Casa Nostra somehow makes them peaceful. :^)

Since I eat all kinds of food, and have enjoyed all kinds of fast food, it would be highly entertaining for someone to pigeonhole me based on my choices as well. And watch out–I’ve eaten pasta and grew up only an hour away from the former home of the world’s most infamous used furniture dealer!

I like the bit about pasta; as if we could claim that a favorite food of Casa Nostra somehow makes them peaceful. :^)

Since I eat all kinds of food, and have enjoyed all kinds of fast food, it would be highly entertaining for someone to pigeonhole me based on my choices as well. And watch out–I’ve eaten pasta and grew up only an hour away from the former home of the world’s most infamous used furniture dealer!

Mary Jack

Several of the ladies in my church keep bringing up how unconnected people are with food now. So much processing, so much altering, could be a sign of how uprooted we’ve become as a society. Unaware of what we are dependent upon.

Mary Jack

Several of the ladies in my church keep bringing up how unconnected people are with food now. So much processing, so much altering, could be a sign of how uprooted we’ve become as a society. Unaware of what we are dependent upon.

Tom Hering

“Can you tell someone’s political beliefs by what they eat?” – Dr. Veith.

After Judge Maryann Sumi reaffirmed her temporary restraining order against enforcement of Governor Walker’s collective bargaining law, the Dane County (Madison) Republican Party issued the following tongue-in-check press release:

The Republican Party of Dane County recognizes that Judge Sumi is a leftist living in Dane County. Her friends are leftists living in Dane County. Her son is a left wing activist in Dane County. She goes to cocktail parties held by leftists in Dane County. She shops at organic gourmet food shops run by leftists living in Dane County. If she were to enforce the law of Wisconsin and do what was in the best interest of the people of Wisconsin, she’d be exiled from her lifestyle. She’d lose her friends!

The leadership of the Republican Party of Dane County have all made the choice to stand against the Dane County elite. We accept that the Left feels righteous vandalizing our homes and keying our cars. It’s only fair. We disagree based upon logic and principle. That is intolerable! We prioritize the Constitution and the well being of the people of Wisconsin over foie gras at cocktail parties. That’s the choice we made. We respect Judge Sumi’s decision to live her life with the rich diversity that liberals cherish.

So, given the parallel appearance of Dr. Veith’s post and the GOP press release, I’m guessing trendy conservatives are now focusing on what their political opponents eat and drink. For some strategic reason only their think tanks could explain to us. (Maybe ALEC suggested it.) 😀

Tom Hering

“Can you tell someone’s political beliefs by what they eat?” – Dr. Veith.

After Judge Maryann Sumi reaffirmed her temporary restraining order against enforcement of Governor Walker’s collective bargaining law, the Dane County (Madison) Republican Party issued the following tongue-in-check press release:

The Republican Party of Dane County recognizes that Judge Sumi is a leftist living in Dane County. Her friends are leftists living in Dane County. Her son is a left wing activist in Dane County. She goes to cocktail parties held by leftists in Dane County. She shops at organic gourmet food shops run by leftists living in Dane County. If she were to enforce the law of Wisconsin and do what was in the best interest of the people of Wisconsin, she’d be exiled from her lifestyle. She’d lose her friends!

The leadership of the Republican Party of Dane County have all made the choice to stand against the Dane County elite. We accept that the Left feels righteous vandalizing our homes and keying our cars. It’s only fair. We disagree based upon logic and principle. That is intolerable! We prioritize the Constitution and the well being of the people of Wisconsin over foie gras at cocktail parties. That’s the choice we made. We respect Judge Sumi’s decision to live her life with the rich diversity that liberals cherish.

So, given the parallel appearance of Dr. Veith’s post and the GOP press release, I’m guessing trendy conservatives are now focusing on what their political opponents eat and drink. For some strategic reason only their think tanks could explain to us. (Maybe ALEC suggested it.) 😀

“Cuisine is an art form, no less than music and painting.” Hmm, I haven’t really thought about that before, but I’m not so sure. If you want to draw a bright line between cuisine and food, I suppose your point would hold up better, but I’m not sure that line exists.

In other words, yes, food can be elevated to an art form, but I’m not sure that it is, itself, an art form. It still arguably has to be food, and the rules inherent in food do not allow for as much artistic expression as, say, music. Or perhaps I’m merely expressing my gustatory conservatism?

To me, the basic idea behind art is creating a thought, a reaction, a feeling in me that would not otherwise be there. But if we work with that definition, food is (or, again, at least has historically been) very much a one-trick pony. The goal has always been to induce pleasure. To make someone say, “Mmmm.”

Contrast that with music, in which even the most conservative strains have given rise to expressions of sadness, contemplativeness, melancholy, rage, national pride, and so on.

And while many people often decry this or that piece or genre of music as “unlistenable”, the label is almost always used in a non-literal sense, meaning more accurately “I don’t enjoy this” (though someone else typically does). But “inedible” carries a lot more physiological heft to it. You may not like natto, but it clearly is edible. Concrete, on the other hand, is not.

I’m sure I haven’t thought this through entirely, and that someone(s) will think of counterexamples to my thoughts, but I’m still not sure that I buy the notion that “Cuisine is an art form, no less than music and painting.”

But perhaps all I’m pointing out here is that it is a much more regimented or rules-based art form.

“Cuisine is an art form, no less than music and painting.” Hmm, I haven’t really thought about that before, but I’m not so sure. If you want to draw a bright line between cuisine and food, I suppose your point would hold up better, but I’m not sure that line exists.

In other words, yes, food can be elevated to an art form, but I’m not sure that it is, itself, an art form. It still arguably has to be food, and the rules inherent in food do not allow for as much artistic expression as, say, music. Or perhaps I’m merely expressing my gustatory conservatism?

To me, the basic idea behind art is creating a thought, a reaction, a feeling in me that would not otherwise be there. But if we work with that definition, food is (or, again, at least has historically been) very much a one-trick pony. The goal has always been to induce pleasure. To make someone say, “Mmmm.”

Contrast that with music, in which even the most conservative strains have given rise to expressions of sadness, contemplativeness, melancholy, rage, national pride, and so on.

And while many people often decry this or that piece or genre of music as “unlistenable”, the label is almost always used in a non-literal sense, meaning more accurately “I don’t enjoy this” (though someone else typically does). But “inedible” carries a lot more physiological heft to it. You may not like natto, but it clearly is edible. Concrete, on the other hand, is not.

I’m sure I haven’t thought this through entirely, and that someone(s) will think of counterexamples to my thoughts, but I’m still not sure that I buy the notion that “Cuisine is an art form, no less than music and painting.”

But perhaps all I’m pointing out here is that it is a much more regimented or rules-based art form.

Marinetti’s ghastly ideas–the rejection of tradition (making Italians give up pasta?) and the embrace of chemicals and technology–are clearly modernist.

I think it’s funny you call that “ghastly”, since it clearly describes a huge amount of the food we modern Americans eat. Or are Chicken McNuggets “traditional” food? (Certainly kids today may grow up thinking so.) And could there be anything more modernist than any packaged food you buy in a grocery store, in which any perceived problem — from longevity to interaction with moisture to “mouth feel” to, of course, taste — can be fixed with the addition of a few distilled chemicals? Why be constrained by the traditional notion of chicken when we can serve people a cooked up chicken-like goo with whatever additives are needed to make it palatable? (Don’t get me wrong; I actually love Chicken McNuggets; I’m just repulsed by what they really are.)

So is the traditional arrangement of meat and potato and vegetables separately on a plate an expression of American individualism …?

Not unless it’s also an expression of British individualism, since our traditional cuisine shares that in common with theirs.

To me, our individualism is much better expressed in the modern restaurant, in which everyone can order their own preference — and, of course, there are even options aimed just at kids! The family eats at the same time, but may have no food items in common.

Contrast this with the Ethiopian restaurants I sometimes visit, where, regardless of what you order, it all comes out on one big platter. Eating like that makes you think more about how much you’ve all ordered as a group (don’t want to get too much or too little), as well as how the dishes you’ve ordered will play together (don’t want to get just meat, or it gets monotone). And, of course, you have to share and can’t hog all the berbere beef, or else your family may get upset.

And what are we to make of the postmodernist touch in so many restaurants today of stacking the different foods on top of each other?

I’m sorry, but how is that postmodern? I don’t get the joke/reference.

Marinetti’s ghastly ideas–the rejection of tradition (making Italians give up pasta?) and the embrace of chemicals and technology–are clearly modernist.

I think it’s funny you call that “ghastly”, since it clearly describes a huge amount of the food we modern Americans eat. Or are Chicken McNuggets “traditional” food? (Certainly kids today may grow up thinking so.) And could there be anything more modernist than any packaged food you buy in a grocery store, in which any perceived problem — from longevity to interaction with moisture to “mouth feel” to, of course, taste — can be fixed with the addition of a few distilled chemicals? Why be constrained by the traditional notion of chicken when we can serve people a cooked up chicken-like goo with whatever additives are needed to make it palatable? (Don’t get me wrong; I actually love Chicken McNuggets; I’m just repulsed by what they really are.)

So is the traditional arrangement of meat and potato and vegetables separately on a plate an expression of American individualism …?

Not unless it’s also an expression of British individualism, since our traditional cuisine shares that in common with theirs.

To me, our individualism is much better expressed in the modern restaurant, in which everyone can order their own preference — and, of course, there are even options aimed just at kids! The family eats at the same time, but may have no food items in common.

Contrast this with the Ethiopian restaurants I sometimes visit, where, regardless of what you order, it all comes out on one big platter. Eating like that makes you think more about how much you’ve all ordered as a group (don’t want to get too much or too little), as well as how the dishes you’ve ordered will play together (don’t want to get just meat, or it gets monotone). And, of course, you have to share and can’t hog all the berbere beef, or else your family may get upset.

And what are we to make of the postmodernist touch in so many restaurants today of stacking the different foods on top of each other?

I’m sorry, but how is that postmodern? I don’t get the joke/reference.

Some additional notes:
1. The essence of traditional Italian food, as we know it today, is Cucina Povera, or poor man’s cuisine..

2. The strongest support for traditional food and food-culture today come from Slow Food. Slow Food was the creation of Carlo Petrini, Italian Journalist, in response to McDonalds opening an outlet at the Spanish Steps in Rome. Mr Petrini’s political allegiance is to the left – he is an Italian Socialist.

3. Meat-veg-potatoes is a simplisitc view of Anglo-American food, at least insofar the Anglo part is concerned. Ever heard of game pie / Cornish pasties etc etc?

4. There are lots of scope for the development of traditional American foods in directions other than Junk Food and pre-prepared frozen meals etc etc. Read Jamie Oliver’s recent publication, Jamie’s America.

5. The view (apparently) common to many Americans that food culture is the domain of the rich is incorrect: What is common to many of the nouveau -Rich on this continent is insane fadism. Which has nothing to do with food per se, but more about appearance and ‘veneer’.

Louis

What Todd said.

Some additional notes:
1. The essence of traditional Italian food, as we know it today, is Cucina Povera, or poor man’s cuisine..

2. The strongest support for traditional food and food-culture today come from Slow Food. Slow Food was the creation of Carlo Petrini, Italian Journalist, in response to McDonalds opening an outlet at the Spanish Steps in Rome. Mr Petrini’s political allegiance is to the left – he is an Italian Socialist.

3. Meat-veg-potatoes is a simplisitc view of Anglo-American food, at least insofar the Anglo part is concerned. Ever heard of game pie / Cornish pasties etc etc?

4. There are lots of scope for the development of traditional American foods in directions other than Junk Food and pre-prepared frozen meals etc etc. Read Jamie Oliver’s recent publication, Jamie’s America.

5. The view (apparently) common to many Americans that food culture is the domain of the rich is incorrect: What is common to many of the nouveau -Rich on this continent is insane fadism. Which has nothing to do with food per se, but more about appearance and ‘veneer’.

Well, tODD, you are saying you disagree with the premise, that cuisine (which is certainly more than eating, just as painting is more than just looking) can be an art form, while giving great examples of what I am talking about! Yes, Chicken McNuggets are an example of “modernist” high-tech food, which is engineered to taste good while still being in principle “ghastly.” Yes, we get our individualism from Great Britain. Yes, our behavior at a restaurant of everyone getting something different is a perfect example of American individualism, in stark and probably unhealthy contrast to the communal experience of Ethiopian cuisine.

Well, tODD, you are saying you disagree with the premise, that cuisine (which is certainly more than eating, just as painting is more than just looking) can be an art form, while giving great examples of what I am talking about! Yes, Chicken McNuggets are an example of “modernist” high-tech food, which is engineered to taste good while still being in principle “ghastly.” Yes, we get our individualism from Great Britain. Yes, our behavior at a restaurant of everyone getting something different is a perfect example of American individualism, in stark and probably unhealthy contrast to the communal experience of Ethiopian cuisine.

WebMonk

Nero Wolfe, would have something to say on this. At least if he could be tempted away from his orchids. Archie would probably side with tODD, though, in his skepticism of cuisine being a form of art.

WebMonk

Nero Wolfe, would have something to say on this. At least if he could be tempted away from his orchids. Archie would probably side with tODD, though, in his skepticism of cuisine being a form of art.

To add to Tom’s point (@4), Republicans love to pretend that they’re down-home, good, upright, honest, just-folks types when it comes to food. As exemplified in the somewhat infamous anti-Howard-Dean ad run by Club for Growth, in which an actor said:

Howard Dean should take his tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show back to Vermont, where it belongs.

Right. Because when I go back to Texas, I never see any pro-GOP bumper stickers outside of the Starbucks you find on every other corner.

But actual GOP policy seems to largely exist to defend our (ghastly) modernist approach to food production, and the corporations that will serve it to us. For instance, corn and soybean subsidies.

Which means that you have “conservatives” defending a “tradition” that is itself quite radical: “Let’s embrace this new revolution and then ‘conserve’ its values.” Which is, of course, very American of them, a la the American Revolution.

To add to Tom’s point (@4), Republicans love to pretend that they’re down-home, good, upright, honest, just-folks types when it comes to food. As exemplified in the somewhat infamous anti-Howard-Dean ad run by Club for Growth, in which an actor said:

Howard Dean should take his tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show back to Vermont, where it belongs.

Right. Because when I go back to Texas, I never see any pro-GOP bumper stickers outside of the Starbucks you find on every other corner.

But actual GOP policy seems to largely exist to defend our (ghastly) modernist approach to food production, and the corporations that will serve it to us. For instance, corn and soybean subsidies.

Which means that you have “conservatives” defending a “tradition” that is itself quite radical: “Let’s embrace this new revolution and then ‘conserve’ its values.” Which is, of course, very American of them, a la the American Revolution.

Louis

Todd@14 – that reads like Baptist theology: “We do not believe in Traditions. That is our historical position.” Riiight….

Louis

Todd@14 – that reads like Baptist theology: “We do not believe in Traditions. That is our historical position.” Riiight….

And Dr. Veith (@12), WebMonk (@13), I’m not saying that food can’t be an art form. I’m saying it’s not necessarily so. Ultimately, I’m pondering Veith’s statement that “Cuisine is an art form, no less than music and painting”, with emphasis on the “no less” part. I think some things are more inherently given to artistic expression than others that may be more constrained by functional requirements.

I mean, paintings rarely are purely utilitarian (as opposed to aesthetic), but food and architecture both can exist quite easily as solely utilitarian. Naturally, one can move beyond the nutritive requirements of food into the aesthetic realm, and one can similarly transcend architecture’s requirements of stable shelter. But then, one can also elevate a software reference manual beyond its functional requirements. And yet, that doesn’t mean that everyone would agree that “software reference manuals are an art form, no less than music and painting.”

And, again, maybe this all boils down to a dichotomy of food vs. cuisine — which I see as more of a continuum. But I’m not sure that such a continuum exists equally in all forms of expression. Unless, perhaps, by “painting” we want to consider, way over on the functional end, things like the color of my home’s walls and trim.

And Dr. Veith (@12), WebMonk (@13), I’m not saying that food can’t be an art form. I’m saying it’s not necessarily so. Ultimately, I’m pondering Veith’s statement that “Cuisine is an art form, no less than music and painting”, with emphasis on the “no less” part. I think some things are more inherently given to artistic expression than others that may be more constrained by functional requirements.

I mean, paintings rarely are purely utilitarian (as opposed to aesthetic), but food and architecture both can exist quite easily as solely utilitarian. Naturally, one can move beyond the nutritive requirements of food into the aesthetic realm, and one can similarly transcend architecture’s requirements of stable shelter. But then, one can also elevate a software reference manual beyond its functional requirements. And yet, that doesn’t mean that everyone would agree that “software reference manuals are an art form, no less than music and painting.”

And, again, maybe this all boils down to a dichotomy of food vs. cuisine — which I see as more of a continuum. But I’m not sure that such a continuum exists equally in all forms of expression. Unless, perhaps, by “painting” we want to consider, way over on the functional end, things like the color of my home’s walls and trim.

As with anything, food and ideology seem like they are most intimately related when thoughtful choice dictates what will be eaten. For many Americans that the content of ones diet looks to be driven most commonly by convenience and cost rather than ideology (though not precluding a latent ideology). Perhaps it would be helpful to narrow the question (of if ideology can be deduced from diet) to streams where diet is conscientiously prioritized (a case study among varying diets? i.e. the Caveman diet, slow food, etc.)
As I think about it, I have to consider that diet is ideologically laden in the same way that architecture is ideologically laden. While the field is strewn with Craftsman, Victorian, Modern (etc.) structures/philosophies, it is also populated with McMansions and tract housing.

As with anything, food and ideology seem like they are most intimately related when thoughtful choice dictates what will be eaten. For many Americans that the content of ones diet looks to be driven most commonly by convenience and cost rather than ideology (though not precluding a latent ideology). Perhaps it would be helpful to narrow the question (of if ideology can be deduced from diet) to streams where diet is conscientiously prioritized (a case study among varying diets? i.e. the Caveman diet, slow food, etc.)
As I think about it, I have to consider that diet is ideologically laden in the same way that architecture is ideologically laden. While the field is strewn with Craftsman, Victorian, Modern (etc.) structures/philosophies, it is also populated with McMansions and tract housing.

Louis

Todd, my point is Veith’s connecting of dinner plate-apartheid 😉 with Anglo-individualism is not very valid. The ingredients are not the issue, more the combination/separation.

Louis

Todd, my point is Veith’s connecting of dinner plate-apartheid 😉 with Anglo-individualism is not very valid. The ingredients are not the issue, more the combination/separation.

Louis

Joe, it has been shown that cost is even less of an issue than, well, how do I put it politely.. laziness, ignorance and general ineptitude.

Louis

Joe, it has been shown that cost is even less of an issue than, well, how do I put it politely.. laziness, ignorance and general ineptitude.

Louis

And, Joe, before I forget, Government subsidies, corporate bribes (sorry, I meant lobbying) and bureaucratic incompetence to keep the situation thus.

Louis

And, Joe, before I forget, Government subsidies, corporate bribes (sorry, I meant lobbying) and bureaucratic incompetence to keep the situation thus.

In reading more about Marinetti, I’ve come to think more about Veith’s statement:

I’ve written about the Futurists and their very real (but often minimized) connection to Fascism. They demonstrate that Fascism was most certainly NOT conservative, but instead “the latest thing” much beloved by “cutting edge” artist and thinkers.

And I’m happy to be corrected by anyone with more knowledge (I’m just a guy with a Web connection), but this statement seems to cast things in a much different light than what actually happened. I mean, there’s no question of how things began, with the Futurist Political Party being absorbed by the Fascists and Marinetti very much supporting and inspiring the Fascists. But…

According to Wikipedia[1]:

[Marinetti] opposed Fascism’s later exaltation of existing institutions, calling them “reactionary,” and, after walking out of the 1920 Fascist party congress in disgust, withdrew from politics for three years. …

Although in the early years of Italian Fascism, modern art was tolerated and even embraced, towards the end of the 1930s, right-wing Fascists introduced the concept of “degenerate art” from Germany to Italy and condemned Futurism. In 1938, hearing that Adolf Hitler wanted to include Futurism in a traveling exhibition of degenerate art, Marinetti persuaded Mussolini to refuse to let it enter Italy. …

Marinetti made numerous moves to ingratiate himself with the regime, becoming less radical and avant garde with each. He moved from Milan to Rome to be nearer the centre of things. He became an academician despite his condemnation of academies, saying, “It is important that Futurism be represented in the Academy.” He married despite his condemnation of marriage, promoted religious art after the Lateran Treaty of 1929 and even reconciled himself to the Catholic Church, declaring that Jesus was a Futurist.

And from the MoMA[2]:

Mussolini used [the Futurist Political Party’s] support in his rise to power in 1922, even though policy differences quickly appeared. Marinetti continued to support Fascism, even though the regime favoured a classical figurative style of art, which most of the first generation of Futurist artists adopted. Marinetti, however, persisted in promoting Futurist ideas and art.

Point being, yes, “cutting edge” artists and thinkers were certainly enamored of “the latest thing” in Fascism. But, fascism was not so enamored of them, once it no longer needed their support, and it did take a “conservative” (or, perhaps, reactionary) turn when it needed wider support.

In reading more about Marinetti, I’ve come to think more about Veith’s statement:

I’ve written about the Futurists and their very real (but often minimized) connection to Fascism. They demonstrate that Fascism was most certainly NOT conservative, but instead “the latest thing” much beloved by “cutting edge” artist and thinkers.

And I’m happy to be corrected by anyone with more knowledge (I’m just a guy with a Web connection), but this statement seems to cast things in a much different light than what actually happened. I mean, there’s no question of how things began, with the Futurist Political Party being absorbed by the Fascists and Marinetti very much supporting and inspiring the Fascists. But…

According to Wikipedia[1]:

[Marinetti] opposed Fascism’s later exaltation of existing institutions, calling them “reactionary,” and, after walking out of the 1920 Fascist party congress in disgust, withdrew from politics for three years. …

Although in the early years of Italian Fascism, modern art was tolerated and even embraced, towards the end of the 1930s, right-wing Fascists introduced the concept of “degenerate art” from Germany to Italy and condemned Futurism. In 1938, hearing that Adolf Hitler wanted to include Futurism in a traveling exhibition of degenerate art, Marinetti persuaded Mussolini to refuse to let it enter Italy. …

Marinetti made numerous moves to ingratiate himself with the regime, becoming less radical and avant garde with each. He moved from Milan to Rome to be nearer the centre of things. He became an academician despite his condemnation of academies, saying, “It is important that Futurism be represented in the Academy.” He married despite his condemnation of marriage, promoted religious art after the Lateran Treaty of 1929 and even reconciled himself to the Catholic Church, declaring that Jesus was a Futurist.

And from the MoMA[2]:

Mussolini used [the Futurist Political Party’s] support in his rise to power in 1922, even though policy differences quickly appeared. Marinetti continued to support Fascism, even though the regime favoured a classical figurative style of art, which most of the first generation of Futurist artists adopted. Marinetti, however, persisted in promoting Futurist ideas and art.

Point being, yes, “cutting edge” artists and thinkers were certainly enamored of “the latest thing” in Fascism. But, fascism was not so enamored of them, once it no longer needed their support, and it did take a “conservative” (or, perhaps, reactionary) turn when it needed wider support.

Mmmmmmmm…..pasties! (BTW, for the uninitiated, that’s pronounced “pass-tees,” not “paste-ees”–short not long a–the latter is what strippers wear to comply with the law, and has no place in food….except perhaps in Dane County)

And for reference, a lot of liberals hate foie gras because the geese are force-fed to get ’em fatty enough. They’re like bacon for rich people, and hence one could argue it’s for conservatives.

Except I’m conservative, and I’ve never tried it, ’cause of that Scotch blood in me…..

One other thought; Democrats from farm states go for farm subsidies, too. I personally detest them (let’s grow more corn that people don’t want and kill Gulf of Mexico shrimp fisheries in the bargain!), but the reality is that they’re a bipartisan boondoggle.

Mmmmmmmm…..pasties! (BTW, for the uninitiated, that’s pronounced “pass-tees,” not “paste-ees”–short not long a–the latter is what strippers wear to comply with the law, and has no place in food….except perhaps in Dane County)

And for reference, a lot of liberals hate foie gras because the geese are force-fed to get ’em fatty enough. They’re like bacon for rich people, and hence one could argue it’s for conservatives.

Except I’m conservative, and I’ve never tried it, ’cause of that Scotch blood in me…..

One other thought; Democrats from farm states go for farm subsidies, too. I personally detest them (let’s grow more corn that people don’t want and kill Gulf of Mexico shrimp fisheries in the bargain!), but the reality is that they’re a bipartisan boondoggle.

Louis

Bike – it depends from which culture the ‘liberal’ stems. As I said above, many European socialists would be very upset if you were to suggest stopping the production of foie gras.

And you are quite correct in that the Agri/food business – government cabal is a bipartisan monstrosity.

Louis

Bike – it depends from which culture the ‘liberal’ stems. As I said above, many European socialists would be very upset if you were to suggest stopping the production of foie gras.

And you are quite correct in that the Agri/food business – government cabal is a bipartisan monstrosity.

Well, tODD, the scary thing about the artists and intellectuals who embraced Fascism was that they often concluded that Mussolini and Hitler didn’t go far enough! Mussolini didn’t level Venice and fill in the canals to build a modernist miitaristic city. Hitler went after the Jews, but he gave the Christians a pass. Yes, they considered them “too conservative.” The beliefs of the artists and intellectuals–such as Ezra Pound, Martin Heidegger, Paul de Man, the futurists, etc.–tend to be covered over by those who assume that artists and intellectuals can do no wrong, but the record of these guys is really chilling. I document this in my book Modern Fascism.

Well, tODD, the scary thing about the artists and intellectuals who embraced Fascism was that they often concluded that Mussolini and Hitler didn’t go far enough! Mussolini didn’t level Venice and fill in the canals to build a modernist miitaristic city. Hitler went after the Jews, but he gave the Christians a pass. Yes, they considered them “too conservative.” The beliefs of the artists and intellectuals–such as Ezra Pound, Martin Heidegger, Paul de Man, the futurists, etc.–tend to be covered over by those who assume that artists and intellectuals can do no wrong, but the record of these guys is really chilling. I document this in my book Modern Fascism.

Love this topic. I’ve been reading The Spirit of Food, a collection of essays written by Christians of all political persuasions…which, leads me to what I think is most profound about food – it transcends our ideologies. The most diverse gatherings are around the extended family table. Even if we can’t agree on religion and politics – with food, there is something for everyone.

I’m pretty sure I’ve got a book (or three) in me about all this, but until the homeschooling (of three) season of my life ends (which won’t be for a while), it probably won’t get written. But I’m happy to conduct the research until then: cooking, eating, reading about food, seeing its symbolism Biblically/spiritually, and enjoying the amazing sense of taste (and smell) which our creative God has lavished upon his children. Imagine if we take C.S. Lewis’ description of heaven in the Great Divorce – the way everything is that much more “real” – and apply that to food!

Love this topic. I’ve been reading The Spirit of Food, a collection of essays written by Christians of all political persuasions…which, leads me to what I think is most profound about food – it transcends our ideologies. The most diverse gatherings are around the extended family table. Even if we can’t agree on religion and politics – with food, there is something for everyone.

I’m pretty sure I’ve got a book (or three) in me about all this, but until the homeschooling (of three) season of my life ends (which won’t be for a while), it probably won’t get written. But I’m happy to conduct the research until then: cooking, eating, reading about food, seeing its symbolism Biblically/spiritually, and enjoying the amazing sense of taste (and smell) which our creative God has lavished upon his children. Imagine if we take C.S. Lewis’ description of heaven in the Great Divorce – the way everything is that much more “real” – and apply that to food!

Dr. Veith (@24), I get “the scary thing” that you’re talking about, and I certainly do not assume “that artists and intellectuals can do no wrong”. Still, I’m not sure I can agree with your original assertion that the Futurists “demonstrate that Fascism was most certainly NOT conservative”.

After all, Hitler’s brand of Fascism explicitly rejected Futurism, branding it “degenerate”. And even if Mussolini didn’t go that far, he did end up embracing “a classical figurative style of art”.

All of which could be wielded, were one so inclined, to demonstrate that Fascism was most certainly NOT liberal. If one were inclined to make sweeping, pigeonholing statements of blame according to the forced either/or dichotomy of “liberal” and “conservative”.

Again, I’m not talking about the political ideology itself which, yes, was radical. But your conclusion about the “NOT conservative” nature of Fascism (vis-a-vis Futurism) does seem to ignore both Fascism’s subsequent treatment of Futurism, as well as how the Futurists (e.g. Marinetti) in turn reacted.

They demonstrate that Fascism was most certainly NOT conservative, but instead “the latest thing” much beloved by “cutting edge” artist and thinkers.

Dr. Veith (@24), I get “the scary thing” that you’re talking about, and I certainly do not assume “that artists and intellectuals can do no wrong”. Still, I’m not sure I can agree with your original assertion that the Futurists “demonstrate that Fascism was most certainly NOT conservative”.

After all, Hitler’s brand of Fascism explicitly rejected Futurism, branding it “degenerate”. And even if Mussolini didn’t go that far, he did end up embracing “a classical figurative style of art”.

All of which could be wielded, were one so inclined, to demonstrate that Fascism was most certainly NOT liberal. If one were inclined to make sweeping, pigeonholing statements of blame according to the forced either/or dichotomy of “liberal” and “conservative”.

Again, I’m not talking about the political ideology itself which, yes, was radical. But your conclusion about the “NOT conservative” nature of Fascism (vis-a-vis Futurism) does seem to ignore both Fascism’s subsequent treatment of Futurism, as well as how the Futurists (e.g. Marinetti) in turn reacted.

They demonstrate that Fascism was most certainly NOT conservative, but instead “the latest thing” much beloved by “cutting edge” artist and thinkers.

tODD. I write about the relationship between Fascism and Modernism–and even more so, postmodernism–in my book “Modern Fascism.” I deal with the issues you raise. Yes, as I say there, our “liberal” and “conservative” dichotomy is too clumsy (and it also cannot be applied in any other time other than our own). There is a “revolutionary” phase, when a radical ideology challenges the old regime and seizes power, and then an “institutional” phase when the radical ideology has power and tries to fix it forever. Yes, the former revolutionaries then can fall out of favor and become victims of their own revolution. This happened with the French Revolution and with the Communist revolutions in each country in which they took place. Even a top propagandist like Eisenstein (“The Battleship Potemkin”) fell afoul of Stalin, but no one doubts that he and his films were Marxists.

The Futurists do indeed exemplify the fascist aesthetic, praising violence, the release of the passions, the notion that one can create a new reality by the power of the will (cf. Hitler’s propaganda film, “The Triumph of the Will.”) Yes, the fascist and Nazi parties eventually became more conservative than they were. That Marinetti came to consider Mussolini too conservative does not mean that he WAS conservative. It just means that Marinetti was even more radical than Mussolini was.

I don’t think that you could say that the artists and thinkers who embraced fascism were just open to “the latest thing” like the Athenians in Paul’s day. These people wrote very extensively about their beliefs and what they wanted to see happen. These were the same beliefs–the rejection of pity, the adulation of strength, the critique of morality, the rejection of reason, the attempt to integrate culture and nature and spirit–that the fascist politicians were embodying.

tODD. I write about the relationship between Fascism and Modernism–and even more so, postmodernism–in my book “Modern Fascism.” I deal with the issues you raise. Yes, as I say there, our “liberal” and “conservative” dichotomy is too clumsy (and it also cannot be applied in any other time other than our own). There is a “revolutionary” phase, when a radical ideology challenges the old regime and seizes power, and then an “institutional” phase when the radical ideology has power and tries to fix it forever. Yes, the former revolutionaries then can fall out of favor and become victims of their own revolution. This happened with the French Revolution and with the Communist revolutions in each country in which they took place. Even a top propagandist like Eisenstein (“The Battleship Potemkin”) fell afoul of Stalin, but no one doubts that he and his films were Marxists.

The Futurists do indeed exemplify the fascist aesthetic, praising violence, the release of the passions, the notion that one can create a new reality by the power of the will (cf. Hitler’s propaganda film, “The Triumph of the Will.”) Yes, the fascist and Nazi parties eventually became more conservative than they were. That Marinetti came to consider Mussolini too conservative does not mean that he WAS conservative. It just means that Marinetti was even more radical than Mussolini was.

I don’t think that you could say that the artists and thinkers who embraced fascism were just open to “the latest thing” like the Athenians in Paul’s day. These people wrote very extensively about their beliefs and what they wanted to see happen. These were the same beliefs–the rejection of pity, the adulation of strength, the critique of morality, the rejection of reason, the attempt to integrate culture and nature and spirit–that the fascist politicians were embodying.

Tom Hering

Hasn’t “fascism” become a clumsy term too? Actually, a mushy term? Both Democrats and Republicans accuse each other of fascism, without ever saying what they mean, exactly.

During the weeks of protest in Madison, I often suggested to my fellow Dems that they not use “fascist” to describe Walker and the Republicans, because it’s a term that goes in one ear and out the other. It lacks power as a critique because it lacks a clear meaning in contemporary America. And when I pointed out that Walker and the Republicans had little in common with historical fascists, the best response I’d get was, “Well, they’re a modern kind of fascist.” Sigh. I hate going around in circles.

Tom Hering

Hasn’t “fascism” become a clumsy term too? Actually, a mushy term? Both Democrats and Republicans accuse each other of fascism, without ever saying what they mean, exactly.

During the weeks of protest in Madison, I often suggested to my fellow Dems that they not use “fascist” to describe Walker and the Republicans, because it’s a term that goes in one ear and out the other. It lacks power as a critique because it lacks a clear meaning in contemporary America. And when I pointed out that Walker and the Republicans had little in common with historical fascists, the best response I’d get was, “Well, they’re a modern kind of fascist.” Sigh. I hate going around in circles.

Joanne

I’ve always seen the Facists (in Italy and National Socialists in Germany) and the Communists as two brutal groups of socialists that fought it out in the last century for the right to implement socialism in Europe. You may consider this odd, but as of now national socialism has won that battle. All of Europe has implemented national socialism right down to the laws against certain kinds of speech, but especially the economic aspects. It’s those half-way applications of the fascists/national socialists that caught the ire of the futurists that so distinguishes them from the communists and makes them so successful today. Quo vadis? Standing still is harder than moving and it’s only an election or two, or one exciting revolution from here to complete joy or sorrow for futurists.

Joanne

I’ve always seen the Facists (in Italy and National Socialists in Germany) and the Communists as two brutal groups of socialists that fought it out in the last century for the right to implement socialism in Europe. You may consider this odd, but as of now national socialism has won that battle. All of Europe has implemented national socialism right down to the laws against certain kinds of speech, but especially the economic aspects. It’s those half-way applications of the fascists/national socialists that caught the ire of the futurists that so distinguishes them from the communists and makes them so successful today. Quo vadis? Standing still is harder than moving and it’s only an election or two, or one exciting revolution from here to complete joy or sorrow for futurists.

Joanne

Food is most definitely an art form. I’ve experienced it as such. Y just yesterday we had 3 bowls of seafood gumbo and bananas Foster for dessert brought home for lunch from the neighborhood Copeland’s Restaurant. It was delicious with crusty bread, though as expected it had way too much cayenne pepper in the gumbo. Eating well is a matter of focus and priority, and not being in Greece. The french can convince you of it but so can the Germans. Imagine a warm sauerkraut with apples, walnuts, heavy cream, cinnamin, etc. ; imagine venison with a chocolate sauce…..
Well, at home I am with Louis @11 and the Italian, Carlo Petrini, with the Slow Food movement. The crockpot has become my primary cooking utensil. My red beans and rice with smoked hamhock cooked all day long after soaking the beans all night; they never leave any on the plate. And with the slow food, I add my own notion to eat only what people have always eaten for thousands of years, nothing new and over-processed. So, I cook, slowly, Mahatma whole long grain brown rice; it’s nutty tasting and chewy. I wash the rice till the water isn’t cloudy then into the pot with just enough water to cover then on simmer till done, as long as it takes (but it’s usually done in 30 minutes). Now, it’s crawfish season. Just imagine a butter sauce, boiled crawfish, and that rice. A light salad with vinagrette/anchovie dressing; bagette rolls. Bread pudding with whisky sauce. It’s only a matter of focus, priority, and detail.

Joanne

Food is most definitely an art form. I’ve experienced it as such. Y just yesterday we had 3 bowls of seafood gumbo and bananas Foster for dessert brought home for lunch from the neighborhood Copeland’s Restaurant. It was delicious with crusty bread, though as expected it had way too much cayenne pepper in the gumbo. Eating well is a matter of focus and priority, and not being in Greece. The french can convince you of it but so can the Germans. Imagine a warm sauerkraut with apples, walnuts, heavy cream, cinnamin, etc. ; imagine venison with a chocolate sauce…..
Well, at home I am with Louis @11 and the Italian, Carlo Petrini, with the Slow Food movement. The crockpot has become my primary cooking utensil. My red beans and rice with smoked hamhock cooked all day long after soaking the beans all night; they never leave any on the plate. And with the slow food, I add my own notion to eat only what people have always eaten for thousands of years, nothing new and over-processed. So, I cook, slowly, Mahatma whole long grain brown rice; it’s nutty tasting and chewy. I wash the rice till the water isn’t cloudy then into the pot with just enough water to cover then on simmer till done, as long as it takes (but it’s usually done in 30 minutes). Now, it’s crawfish season. Just imagine a butter sauce, boiled crawfish, and that rice. A light salad with vinagrette/anchovie dressing; bagette rolls. Bread pudding with whisky sauce. It’s only a matter of focus, priority, and detail.